That's how they live with themselves. An interesting read at Raw Story. The columnist explores the mindset at work. And don't miss the comments-- several people had good things to add. First four paragraphs:
THE PLAME AFFAIR
Heart of darkness
By John Steinberg | RAW STORY COLUMNIST
As the Plamegate imbroglio festers, the question finally on many lips and a growing number of newspaper headlines is, “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” An important question, to be sure, but I would like to suggest another, perhaps more revealing question: how did he know it?
The White House is not in any hurry to tell us how much Bush knew or when he knew it. But I think we can intuit a great deal about how. Almost a year ago, Scott McClellan told us that “The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved,” but the White House has refused to elaborate. I doubt that McClellan was freelancing here: Bush may well have told him exactly that – no more and no less.
My internal Venn diagram of the sets “Bush speaks” and “Bush lies” has the two circles overlapping almost completely. Paradoxically, I suspect that, at least in the wiggle-the-polygraph sense, he might actually be telling the truth this time. Because, without getting into a "depends-on-what-your-definition-of -'is'-is" discussion, I would not be surprised if Bush actually believes he does know it -- not in the way most of us would recognize, but as he defines knowing. And that distinction takes us to a deeper question, and the very heart of the danger George Bush represents.
Post-Enlightenment folks tend to think of knowledge as an empirical thing: knowledge is the product of evidence that comports with a theory or world view. As such, we seek data, and when the data are inconclusive or inconsistent with expectation, we admit that we don’t know.
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/steinberg/heart_of_darkness_072905.htm